UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MARK KENT NOLAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. DAYTON POPPEL,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 99-6208

ORDER Filed April 19, 2000
Before TACHA , ANDERSON , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Appellant Mark Kent Nolan petitions for rehearing o f the court’s April 3, 2000 order and judgment, arguing that this court gr anted him a certificate of appealability on November 16, 1999, and a certificate of appealability should not have been denied subsequently. He also requests ap pointment of counsel and an opportunity for additional briefing on the appeal. The petition for rehearing is granted in part. Ouroriginal order and judgment is amended to reflect that a certificate o f appealability was granted and that petitioner’s habeas claims were considered and denied on the merits under-2-

the applicable standard of review. A copy of the a mended order and judgment is attached to this order and is substituted for the o riginal. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied.

Entered for the Court Patrick Fisher, Clerk of Court By: Keith Nelson Deputy Clerk* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 19 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
MARK KENT NOLAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. DAYTON POPPEL,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 99-6208 (D.C. No. 98-CV-787) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , ANDERSON , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner Mark Kent Nolan, a prisoner of the State of Oklahoma appearing pro se, appeals from the denial of his petition forhabeas relief filed under1 Petitioner also argues that the discrepancy between the charging

information and the proof at trial amounted to a pr ejudicial variance. Petitioner raised this argument for the first time in his obje ctions to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See R. Doc. 19, at 1. Accordingly, we deem the issue waived and do not address it. See Marshall v. Chater , 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996). -2- 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and seeks leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. His application for a certificate of appealability was previously granted and respondent has filed a response. Petitioner is serving a thirty-five year sentence i mposed after his conviction of first degree burglary and possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. He argues 1 that: (1) the charging information was constructi vely amended, violating his right to due process; (2) hi s conviction for first degree burglary, in light of his acquittal on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon, violated his right to be free from double jeopardy; (3) evidence from the first phase of the bifurcated trial was improperly used i n the second phase; (4) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel; and ( 5) he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. The magistrate ju dge analyzed each of petitioner’s claims and recommended that the petiti on be dismissed. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation

. Because petitioner filed his § 2254 petition in Jun e 1998, the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act o f 1996 (AEDPA) apply. See-3-

Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997). “[W]hen reviewing the merits of a claim already decided by the state courts, we are b ound to deny habeas relief unless the state court’s decision ‘was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court’ or ‘resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.’” LaFevers v. Gibson , 182 F.3d 705, 711 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting 28 U. S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2)). “If the habeas claim before us was not decided on the merits by the state courts, and the federal district courtmade its own determination in the first instance, we review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact, if any, for clear error.” Id

. We have reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court’s order, the parties’ materials, and the record on appeal. We find no error. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to proc eed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted, and we AFFIRM the denial of habeas relief for substantially the same-4-

reasons as those set forth in the magistrate judge’ s carefully prepared report and recommendation, as adopted by the district court.

Entered for the Court

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge